At Least Manchinism Makes Some Sense

Matt Yglesias makes two important points in his Washington Post column. The first is that the best way to assess a political idea’s popularity is to stress test it. Progressives love to argue that their ideas poll very well with the public, but too often this is based on surveys that don’t have partisan arguments in opposition. In the real world, the Republicans have a big megaphone and tons of money, and all legislative proposals have to run that gauntlet.

The progressive data and analytics firm Blue Rose Research recently set out to rigorously assess the popularity of a wide range of progressive policy proposals. Blue Rose wanted to move beyond traditional issue polling (where almost anything tends to look popular because respondents like to answer “yes” to pollsters) by asking questions that feature explicit partisan framing and counterarguments. In this environment, lots of cherished Biden initiatives such as the expanded child tax credit fare poorly. But other progressive ideas like adding dental and vision benefits to Medicare do well. The single best-scoring item on the agenda, as measured by Blue Rose, is letting the federal government bargain down the price of prescription drugs.

We know raising the minimum wage is popular not just because it does well in the Blue Rose Research surveys but because it keeps winning in voter referendums, including in deep red states like Missouri. Other policies may appear popular until they’re actually tested on the ballot.

The second key point that Yglesias makes is that there’s a big difference between the kinds of objections Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema are making to President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. Both are kind of nonsensically complaining about the cost of the bill, although polling does suggest that the public worries quite a bit about deficit spending and debt. Beyond that, though, Manchin’s complaints fall into two logical categories. Either he’s advocating for industries that disproportionately affect his home state, like the coal industry, or he’s reflecting the social conservatism of his home state, by insisting on the Hyde Amendment, for example. In general, he’s supportive of higher taxes on corporations and high income individuals, and that’s popular in polling of all types.

By contrast, Sinema opposes higher taxes on corporations and the rich, as well as provisions that would lower the cost of prescription drugs. These are the two issues that poll best in red areas. They also don’t affect her state in any disproportionate way, so it’s not a matter of her taking unpopular positions that are nonetheless in tune with Arizona’s unique politics.

Yglesias argues that Manchin provides a model for Democrats who want to compete in Republican-leaning areas, while Sinema offers nothing of any value whatsoever. I think this is basically correct, although Manchin could probably be more of an economic populist and less of a deficit hawk, provided he chose his issues with care. Sinema’s main advantage is simply having a reputation for independence. But when we drill down on the details, the places where she exerts her independence, like opposing a hike in the minimum wage, lower prescription drug prices, and fairer taxes, all seem like sure losers. She’ll get some benefit for being mavericky in a vague sense, but that’s not much of a model for others to follow.